There is a convenient way to represent the elements of a symmetric group on a finite set.
A -cycle is a member of which moves elements to each other cyclically. That is, letting be distinct in , a -cycle is such that for , and , and for any .
We have a much more compact notation for in this case: we write . (If spacing is ambiguous, we put in commas: .) Note that there are several ways to write this: , for example. It is conventional to put the smallest at the start.
Note also that a cycle's inverse is extremely easy to find: the inverse of is .
For example, the double-row notation is written as or or in cycle notation.
However, it is unclear without context which symmetric group lies in: it could be for any . Similarly, could be in for any .
Not every element of is a cycle. For example, the following element of has order so could only be a -cycle, but it moves all four elements:
However, it may be written as the composition of the two cycles and : it is the result of applying one and then the other. Note that since the cycles are disjoint (having no elements in common), it doesn't matter in which order we perform them. It is a very important fact that every permutation may be written as the product of disjoint cycles. If is a permutation obtained by first doing cycle , then by doing cycle , then cycle , we write ; this is by analogy with function composition, indicating that the first permutation to apply is on the rightmost end of the expression. (Be aware that some authors differ on this.)
Firstly, a cycle has order equal to its length. Indeed, the cycle has the effect of rotating , and if we do this times we get back to where we started. (And if we do it fewer times - say times - we can't get back to where we started: .)
Now, suppose we have an element in disjoint cycle notation: , say, where all the are different. Then the order of this element is , because:
This reasoning generalises: the order of an element in disjoint cycle notation is equal to the least_common_multiple of the lengths of the cycles.
This example suggests a general procedure for expressing a permutation which is already in cycle form, in disjoint cycle form. It turns out that this can be done in an essentially unique way.
The cycle type of a permutation is given by taking the list of lengths of the cycles in the disjoint cycle form.